There are 7 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...)
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
1b. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...)
From: Herman Miller
1c. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...)
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
1d. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. Pilovese Babel Text
From: Scotto Hlad
3a. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was Re: Evanescence of infor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4. Re: The Philosophical Language Fallacy
From: David McCann
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...)
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Jul 5, 2008 1:23 pm ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 16:31:06 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> IMHO there is a distinction to be made between
> using a taxonomy to decide which meanings to
> provide words for and using a taxonomic morphology
> if the Wilkinsian kind.
Yes. Actually, I use a general taxonomy of ideas to organize
the vocabulary of Old Albic. The words are not derived in
form from the taxonomy - they are as arbitrary as in any
natlang - it is just that I set up several classes which
I fill with dictionary entries. A great way to get a well-
rounded vocabulary; you instantly see which fields of
discourse need more work. (Actually, the idea is not mine
but Mark Rosenfelder's:
http://www.zompist.com/thematic.htm
I also based the taxonomy I use on his, though I have modified
it in places.)
> The latter clearly leads
> to the problem you describe, especially if the sub-
> distinguishing morphemes are only one phoneme
> long, which opens a whole other can of worms, viz.
> whether short morphemes are a virtue in themselves
> and how much redundancy is desirable (once one has
> decided that redundancy is desirable in the first
> place, which the likes of Wilkins seem not to have
> understood in the first place).
Yes. Wilkins did not realize that redundancy in languages
is not a bug but a feature, and wanted to design a language
which avoids all "unnecessary baggage" of natlangs.
The result is an awfully nonredundant language. This is
a problem which befouls not only Wilkins-style taxonomic
languages but "speedtalk"-style systems in general.
> One strategy which
> might help would be to use morphemes which are
> meaningful in themselves for the sub-distinctions,
> a bit like is done in Chinese compounds (e.g. "pomacea-
> sweet" vs. "pomacea-sour" for 'pear' vs. 'apple'.
> That there are apples which are very sweet is
> beyond the point; the typical apple is sourer than
> the typical pear).
Yes. Compounding is a very useful and also natural device.
However, if you use a closed set of roots, your compounds
soon get pretty long and clumsy. Any taxonomic language
likely will need compounding beyond the taxonomic derivation
of the lexemes, I guess.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:57:48 -0400, Herman Miller wrote:
> Well, proper names aren't usually translated anyway,
I have seen at least one taxonomic language scheme that derived
place names from geographic coordinates!
> but that could be
> an issue if the standard name for something is based on a proper name,
> like "hamburger" from Hamburg, or "watt" from James Watt. Some of these
> sorts of names could be fit into an oligosynthetic scheme, I guess. You
> could have "single reed conical metal wind instrument" for "saxophone"
> if naming it after Adolphe Sax doesn't fit well into your system.
Your 'saxophone' example illustrates the problem very well.
The compounds get very long and clumsy. Your compound consists
of (at least) six morphemes, and in English, it is 12 syllables
long. (In a speetalk-type language, this is not a problem though,
as the whole shebang will be just six phonemes. As long as you
can pronounce it, of course.)
I have mentioned chemical nomenclature earlier in this thread.
The "rational nomenclature" of chemistry works quite much like
a taxonomic language: the "rational" names are build from
elements which represent the atoms and atom groups the compounds
are made of, and are compounded in such a way that you can
derive the structure of the molecule from the name. However,
only with rather simple compounds, such rational names are
actually used - because those names quickly become very long
and unwieldy.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...)
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Jul 5, 2008 3:53 pm ((PDT))
Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>> Well, proper names aren't usually translated anyway,
>
> I have seen at least one taxonomic language scheme that derived
> place names from geographic coordinates!
I hadn't thought of that. Kind of like the systematic naming of stars in
some star catalogs.
>> but that could be
>> an issue if the standard name for something is based on a proper name,
>> like "hamburger" from Hamburg, or "watt" from James Watt. Some of these
>> sorts of names could be fit into an oligosynthetic scheme, I guess. You
>> could have "single reed conical metal wind instrument" for "saxophone"
>> if naming it after Adolphe Sax doesn't fit well into your system.
>
> Your 'saxophone' example illustrates the problem very well.
> The compounds get very long and clumsy. Your compound consists
> of (at least) six morphemes, and in English, it is 12 syllables
> long. (In a speetalk-type language, this is not a problem though,
> as the whole shebang will be just six phonemes. As long as you
> can pronounce it, of course.)
"Metal reed instrument" might suffice, if you can distinguish "metal
(reed instrument)" from "(metal reed) instrument". I can't think of any
other common reed instrument that's typically made of metal these days.
But "reed" and "instrument" are unlikely to be single morphemes in a
limited-vocabulary language. But "hamburger" could be worse, if you have
to come up with a word for "cow" and a word for "bread" from a limited
vocabulary ("cooked cow meat between round bread slices"?). You could
paraphrase it as "cow bread".
> I have mentioned chemical nomenclature earlier in this thread.
> The "rational nomenclature" of chemistry works quite much like
> a taxonomic language: the "rational" names are build from
> elements which represent the atoms and atom groups the compounds
> are made of, and are compounded in such a way that you can
> derive the structure of the molecule from the name. However,
> only with rather simple compounds, such rational names are
> actually used - because those names quickly become very long
> and unwieldy.
I could use some 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione right now.
Let me find those Camellia sinensis leaves I've got around here
somewhere and heat some hydrogen hydroxide to put them in.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...)
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2008 5:30 am ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:51:59 -0400, Herman Miller wrote:
> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > Hallo!
>
> >> Well, proper names aren't usually translated anyway,
> >
> > I have seen at least one taxonomic language scheme that derived
> > place names from geographic coordinates!
>
> I hadn't thought of that. Kind of like the systematic naming of stars in
> some star catalogs.
Yes.
> >> but that could be
> >> an issue if the standard name for something is based on a proper name,
> >> like "hamburger" from Hamburg, or "watt" from James Watt. Some of these
> >> sorts of names could be fit into an oligosynthetic scheme, I guess. You
> >> could have "single reed conical metal wind instrument" for "saxophone"
> >> if naming it after Adolphe Sax doesn't fit well into your system.
> >
> > Your 'saxophone' example illustrates the problem very well.
> > The compounds get very long and clumsy. Your compound consists
> > of (at least) six morphemes, and in English, it is 12 syllables
> > long. (In a speetalk-type language, this is not a problem though,
> > as the whole shebang will be just six phonemes. As long as you
> > can pronounce it, of course.)
>
> "Metal reed instrument" might suffice, if you can distinguish "metal
> (reed instrument)" from "(metal reed) instrument". I can't think of any
> other common reed instrument that's typically made of metal these days.
> But "reed" and "instrument" are unlikely to be single morphemes in a
> limited-vocabulary language. But "hamburger" could be worse, if you have
> to come up with a word for "cow" and a word for "bread" from a limited
> vocabulary ("cooked cow meat between round bread slices"?). You could
> paraphrase it as "cow bread".
Sure. That's the way compounding works in natlangs: not every
single chunk of information needed to uniquely define the thing
goes into the compound, but only some salient features, such as
the blackness and the birdness in the case of _blackbird_, even
though there is more to being a blackbird than just being black
and a bird. (German uses the entirely arbitrary monomorphemic
word _Amsel_ for the same species.)
> > I have mentioned chemical nomenclature earlier in this thread.
> > The "rational nomenclature" of chemistry works quite much like
> > a taxonomic language: the "rational" names are build from
> > elements which represent the atoms and atom groups the compounds
> > are made of, and are compounded in such a way that you can
> > derive the structure of the molecule from the name. However,
> > only with rather simple compounds, such rational names are
> > actually used - because those names quickly become very long
> > and unwieldy.
>
> I could use some 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione right now.
> Let me find those Camellia sinensis leaves I've got around here
> somewhere and heat some hydrogen hydroxide to put them in.
:)
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...)
Posted by: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2008 9:34 am ((PDT))
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Herman Miller
> > I have seen at least one taxonomic language scheme that
derived
> > place names from geographic coordinates!
That sounds like the kooky scheme of Ygyde. The idea isn't bad
for an artlang, but this is being promoted as an IAL. I just
can't see people walking around with GPS's to find out the names
of places.
> > Your 'saxophone' example illustrates the problem very well.
> > The compounds get very long and clumsy. Your compound
consists
> > of (at least) six morphemes, and in English, it is 12
syllables
> > long. (In a speetalk-type language, this is not a problem
though,
> > as the whole shebang will be just six phonemes. As long as
you
> > can pronounce it, of course.)
>
> "Metal reed instrument" might suffice, if you can distinguish
"metal
> (reed instrument)" from "(metal reed) instrument". I can't
think of any
> other common reed instrument that's typically made of metal
these days.
The saxophone is classified as a woodwind because of the reed.
You could taxonomically place it somewhere in a "woodwind"
category. Then realize there are several type of the sax:
baritone, tenor, alto, and soprano.
> But "reed" and "instrument" are unlikely to be single
morphemes in a
> limited-vocabulary language. But "hamburger" could be worse,
if you have
> to come up with a word for "cow" and a word for "bread" from
a limited
> vocabulary ("cooked cow meat between round bread slices"?).
You could
> paraphrase it as "cow bread".
"grind-meat sandwich"
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Pilovese Babel Text
Posted by: "Scotto Hlad" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Jul 5, 2008 1:48 pm ((PDT))
Good afternoon everyone,
After a long hiatus, I have completed the Pilovese Babel text. I lost the
original one and I actually like this translation much better. I have only put
an English translation beside it, I´m thinking I should also add an Xsampa
transcription, but I´m not sure as I hope I will soon be adding a recording as
well.
Follow the link:
http://www3.telus.net/scottoh/pilovese/texts.htm
Scotto
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was Re: Evanescence of infor
Posted by: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2008 9:29 am ((PDT))
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jorg
Rhiemeier
> On the other hand, one should indeed have more than one
conlang
> going. Otherwise, you are likely to incorporate all your
ideas
> in one conlang and thus end up with a kitchen sink language or
> whatever. I have several ideas which I wish to try out, but
> which I feel have no room in Old Albic. So I apply them to
other
> conlang projects - some of them diachronically related to Old
> Albic, others not.
I agree. A lot of my projects are mainly to experiment with
ideas which may or may not find their way into other creations
depending on how the experimentation goes.
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:14:05 -0400, Dana Nutter wrote:
>
> > This is why I gave up on that approach a long time ago. I
do
> > still see value in an oligosynthetic system. At least there
> > will be some mnemonics to aid in learning vocabulary.
>
> Oligosynthetic schemes suffer from many, though not all, of
the
> problems that weigh down taxonomic schemes. It is not easy to
> break down reality to a restricted number of semantic
primitives,
> and how do you handle proper names and such? You need an
"escape
> mechanism" which allows for "importing" arbitrary lexical
material.
> At least that is what I feel to be the case.
No, it's not easy but it's only difficult if you take it to
extremes as with AUI or Toki Pona. I have an oligosynthetic
project in the works, but there is also a phonosemantic schema
that will underly the root morphemes. It's just an idea I'm
playing with right now. I don't expect to reduce everything
down to 32 roots, though I'd be happy to get it down to the
500-600 range.
Proper names will be handled as distinct entities based on
pronunciation. There will be a particle to introduce them.
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Re: The Philosophical Language Fallacy
Posted by: "David McCann" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2008 11:10 am ((PDT))
On Sat, 2008-07-05, Joerg Rhiemier wrote:
> Yes. Compounding is a very useful and also natural device.
> However, if you use a closed set of roots, your compounds
> soon get pretty long and clumsy.
This is rather a matter of taste. In English and, to a lesser extent,
German, we are used to a lot of short words. If you speak Mohawk, then
yontaterihonnyennìtha must sound no stranger than "school". For a
conlang, using a very large set of phonemes, Circassian or Nootka style,
to get an ample supply of monosyllabic roots would help: I'm currently
thinking of doing a language with words of the Æâïnmoq`raÊħÉɬ type.
The real problem of starting with a thesaurus in ones own language is
the semantic bias. An English or German speaker with verbs of movement
like "push" and "roll" might not consider the Romance system with verbs
of motion encoding direction, or the Athabascan one with verbs encoding
the shape or consistency of the moving object.
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
